|
 |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky, uk.politics.environment, sci.environment, alt.global-warming, talk.politics.mideast
From: Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon 11 Aug 2008 16:53
Subject: Re: Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict global warming theory
On 11 Aug, 01:32, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 12:24 am,Steve Wallis The graph on this page only shows (as far as five-year averages are > <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues > > On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 10, 4:11 am,Steve Wallis<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > > I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and > > > > and > > > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > > I did Google "global dimming" as you suggested and came across the > > Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot > Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols concerned) global temperatures reducing in the 1940s. This looks to be based on the same data used in the Wikpedia pages I mentioned. You gave the dates 1943-74, which certainly doesn't tally with this graph, and I remember talk of an ice age when I was growing up (and I was only born in 1966). There was a TV programme with excerpts shown in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which it claimed represented the scientific consensus at the time of a predicted ice age, but with a sole scientist giving a contradictory position suggesting global warming from CO2. It's easy to dismiss "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as propaganda That programme showed a graph with decreasing temperatures for the I spotted the following letter in the Guardian (the #65279 is on the I am becoming fed up with these doomsayers. In the 1970s we were told As an academic I cannot help noting that both the writer of your made that you find particularly persuasive. Would you like to elaborate? > > I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found I did say "quite a lot" rather than "a lot", so I haven't heard all > > arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support > > of it. > I find that implusible. If you had researched it quite a lot, you'd be the arguments. I'm personally a scientist (with a PhD in computer science) and am perfectly capable of being convinced if the evidence for your point of view is good enough! > There are no sound arguments 'against global warming'. The bulk of I had to search for "etiology", not knowing what it meant. [Please > those listed in the 'sceptics' category accept that it is occurring > but dispute only the magnitude of future climate change and the speed, > or the etiology. explain "TSI" which you used later in the message; it's a bit annoying when words/acronyms are used that I don't understand; use of such terms must be even more confusing for people for which English is not their first language.] According to Wikpedia, etiology is the study of causation. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" suggests that global warming causes carbon dioxide rather than the other way round; other sceptics say that people do cause global warming via greenhouse gases but other factors such as solar flares are more significant. I don't know enough physics to be able to judge which of these views is most persuasive. According to NASA statistics for the northern hemisphere, 1998 was the > > When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50 Yes, I know, but it makes an already rather scpetical public even more > > years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the > > coldest Easter for 46 years, > <sigh> regional weather is not climate. Climate is, by definition, a sceptical about global warming theory. Perhaps the Chinese regime is currently playing lip-service to global warming theory but I wouldn't imagine the general public in China is very convinced of it! > > or that the UK sea level is only rising OK, maybe "cosy" is not the best word bearing in mind that > > 3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy > > consensus of environmentalists, most of the media and virtually all > > politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a > > catastrophe. > So much hangs on one word here : "cosy" and you don't support it. The environmentalists are encouraging politicians who say they agree with global warming but aren't prepared to do much (if anything) about it. However, does it strike you as strange that right-wing capitalist views are dominating politics in the West, but those politicians actually agree with lefties on the environment? -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||